Will it isn't the Penguin Waiters from Mary Poppins (maybe they will (if yes, then maybe not yet) or not) but there's still a cameo in Frozen and it's Rapunzel. Maybe both Tangled and Frozen are part of the same universe, it happened for Lilo and Stitch meeting characters from other Disney Shows (American Dragon: Jake Long, The Proud Family, Kim Possible and Recess).

Rtrr121 wrote:There was someone who looked like her during the first First Time In Forever song. She was attending the coronation. Blink and you'll miss it.

It's not someone who looks like her, she has the dress and the exact same hairstyle that Eugene had made when cutting her hair in Tangled. And you see Eugene as well! Just go to Rapunzel, and you'll see. Or to be more specific, here's the image link:

I think that happens because this movie is the first where two princesses meet, they decided to throw in rapunzel and flynn to trip you up and make you think also because one of the creators is from tangled

Freeze417 wrote:I think that happens because this movie is the first where two princesses meet, they decided to throw in rapunzel and flynn to trip you up and make you think also because one of the creators is from tangled

Anna didn't look at Rapunzel, and I still agree with my statement to PrincessCharmingShy1. Ooh, and the co-director for Tangled asked the creators for Frozen about the "blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance", and said he didn't even know about it until he was asked about it by a fan on Facebook.

Rtrr121 wrote:There was someone who looked like her during the first First Time In Forever song. She was attending the coronation. Blink and you'll miss it.

It's not someone who looks like her, she has the dress and the exact same hairstyle that Eugene had made when cutting her hair in Tangled. And you see Eugene as well! Just go to Rapunzel, and you'll see. Or to be more specific, here's the image link:

oh, ya!!! now i see her! i do think it is Rapunzel, but she is shown after her "extreme hair make-over" (lol!!!)

Rtrr121 wrote:There was someone who looked like her during the first First Time In Forever song. She was attending the coronation. Blink and you'll miss it.

It's not someone who looks like her, she has the dress and the exact same hairstyle that Eugene had made when cutting her hair in Tangled. And you see Eugene as well! Just go to Rapunzel, and you'll see. Or to be more specific, here's the image link:

Except for Anna and Elsa, no Disney Princesses have ever made eye contact or acknowledged each others prescence, although it appears so in the link. I think that Anna didn't actually make eye contact or acknowledge Rapunzel's prescence.

I kinda think of it as Frozen, Tangled, Bolt, Dinosaurs, Meet the Robinsons, Big Hero 6 and Wreck-It Ralph all take place in the same world but different time periods (like Frozen and Tangled take place around the same time while Wreck-It Ralph and Bolt take place at the exact same time in a far off future from Frozen and Tangled, since a "wanted dog" sign is spoted outside Litwak's in Wreck-It Ralph). Like it starts with Dinosaurs and currently goes up to either Big Hero 6 or the untitled Teen Space Race movie. I've titled "Disney's CGI World" to represent all current and future CGI projects from Disney, though it doesn't include anything that takes place in an alternate world (like Zootopia or Chicken Little).

Rtrr121 wrote:There was someone who looked like her during the first First Time In Forever song. She was attending the coronation. Blink and you'll miss it.

It's not someone who looks like her, she has the dress and the exact same hairstyle that Eugene had made when cutting her hair in Tangled. And you see Eugene as well! Just go to Rapunzel, and you'll see. Or to be more specific, here's the image link:

Except for Anna and Elsa, no Disney Princesses have ever made eye contact or acknowledged each others prescence, although it appears so in the link. I think that Anna didn't actually make eye contact or acknowledge Rapunzel's prescence.

Anna didn't, but Rapunzel did. Didn't you see Rapunzel look at her in that one-second scene?

Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

Nick102 wrote:Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

If you hate Disney, why are you here? By the way, I don't like Princess and the Frog. Most of it is because of the storyline, which is a definite part to success. That's what makes Tangled and Frozen so great; the storyline and everything else. And who are you to say Disney shouldn't be making movies like Tangled? Every Disney Princess movie is very different than the original story, and are still loved by many.

Nick102 wrote:Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

If you hate Disney, why are you here? By the way, I don't like Princess and the Frog. Most of it is because of the storyline, which is a definite part to success. That's what makes Tangled and Frozen so great; the storyline and everything else. And who are you to say Disney shouldn't be making movies like Tangled? Every Disney Princess movie is very different than the original story, and are still loved by many.

Because Disney is a hand-drawn studio, and they seem to be forgetting that. Anyway, my feelings for Disney now are very two-sided. I still love the 2D Disney of before, which I consider to be "The REAL Disney" and the one that I've loved all my life, but I abosultely hate this stupid New Age, CGI only Disney era of today and would love nothing more than to see this Disney die and go back to what it's supposed to be.

But you do ask a good question. Even I wonder why I keep wasting my time arguing about today's Disney with what I always think are such blind "Disney fans". It's probably because I have to keep getting reminded of their stupid movies all the time.

Nick102 wrote:Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

If you hate Disney, why are you here? By the way, I don't like Princess and the Frog. Most of it is because of the storyline, which is a definite part to success. That's what makes Tangled and Frozen so great; the storyline and everything else. And who are you to say Disney shouldn't be making movies like Tangled? Every Disney Princess movie is very different than the original story, and are still loved by many.

Because Disney is a hand-drawn studio, and they seem to be forgetting that. Anyway, my feelings for Disney now are very two-sided. I still love the 2D Disney of before, which I consider to be "The REAL Disney" and the one that I've loved all my life, but I abosultely hate this stupid New Age, CGI only Disney era of today and would love nothing more than to see this Disney die and go back to what it's supposed to be.

But you do ask a good question. Even I wonder why I keep wasting my time arguing about today's Disney with what I always think are such blind "Disney fans". It's probably because I have to keep getting reminded of their stupid movies all the time.

Even CGI has some hand-drawn in it. In fact, Frozen has some hand-drawn stuff in it. And there's nothing wrong with the animation. 0therwise there wouldn't be believable snow, which is what they wanted. And then there was the hair and hairstyles of that culture/era, clothes, etc

Oh please. They waste all their efforts and time trying to push 2D qualities into what is clearly CGI instead of actually doing REAL 2D. That's the only reason they had 2D animators doing these incredibly pointless hand-drawn animation tests for Wreck-It Ralph when it wasn't even supposed to be a 2D movie. But more than that, they just keep using CGI to push for all this "CGI realism" stuff that I'm almost sick of after having to see it all the time from the dozens of other computer animated movies from other studios. The fact is, CGI movies do not impress me anymore. I don't care how realistic the water/ice looks, or how detailed the hair or clothes look. These kind of animated movies are like a fad that's gone on for way too long.

And as for 2D qualities, Paperman and Get a Horse are the only things I've seen out of the current Disney that manage to do that properly, because they actually look like 2D animation to the point where you feel like you haven't lost anything at all.

Nick102 wrote:Oh please. They waste all their efforts and time trying to push 2D qualities into what is clearly CGI instead of actually doing REAL 2D. That's the only reason they had 2D animators doing these incredibly pointless hand-drawn animation tests for Wreck-It Ralph when it wasn't even supposed to be a 2D movie. But more than that, they just keep using CGI to push for all this "CGI realism" stuff that I'm almost sick of after having to see it all the time from the dozens of other computer animated movies from other studios. The fact is, CGI movies do not impress me anymore. I don't care how realistic the water/ice looks, or how detailed the hair or clothes look. These kind of animated movies are like a fad that's gone on for way too long.

And as for 2D qualities, Paperman and Get a Horse are the only things I've seen out of the current Disney that manage to do that properly, because they actually look like 2D animation to the point where you feel like you haven't lost anything at all.

I heard someone said that it'd be years before Disney would be able implement the hybrid techniques used in Paperman for a full feature film.

Can we please just stop and accept people have different opinions and views? Even if they're "illogical" or something.

~Forum's a good place to grin and be curious. But push your opinions and we'll be-- happy Disney fans!~

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Why should Disney give up a realistic animation as CGI? And that's so arrogant to think they shouldn't be doing something. That was very judgmental. How is realism bad? The way the hair flows is so human and not cartoonish, and it's the same with the clothes and even the breathing. In real-life, in winter, a small cloud forms when you breath into the cold air. In Frozen, you can see that. And when the characters walked, you can see footprints in the snow. How is that bad?

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Why should Disney give up a realistic animation as CGI? And that's so arrogant to think they shouldn't be doing something. That was very judgmental. The animation is, in a way, like Shrek the Third, because of everything being realistic. The way the hair flows is so human and not cartoonish, and it's the same with the clothes and even the breathing. In real-life, in winter, a small cloud forms when you breath into the cold air. In Frozen, you can see that. And when the characters walked, you can see footprints in the snow. How is that bad?

Remeber when cartoons and animation were an art that didn't have to look real? Because I sure do.

Nick102 wrote:Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

If you hate Disney, why are you here? By the way, I don't like Princess and the Frog. Most of it is because of the storyline, which is a definite part to success. That's what makes Tangled and Frozen so great; the storyline and everything else. And who are you to say Disney shouldn't be making movies like Tangled? Every Disney Princess movie is very different than the original story, and are still loved by many.

also, Disney can't hang back in the 19th century! in order to keep producing good movies, they hav to modernize their themes and make their movies more relatable to all the age groups that tend to b fans of Disney. and i agree with InspiredAndNatural. if u don't like Disney anymore, WHY R U STILL HERE?!?!

Nick102 wrote:Well that pretty much proves to me why I think the staff at Disney today are complete idiots. Making refernces to movies that they had no business doing in CGI like they should be proud of it. Wake up, Disney! You're not supposed to be making movies like Tangled, and you're not supposed to be modeling this movie off ofTangled either. Princess and the Frog was like a return to the true Disney for me, and exactly like the kind of movies that they should be making, but where's that movie's adnowledgement?!

If you hate Disney, why are you here? By the way, I don't like Princess and the Frog. Most of it is because of the storyline, which is a definite part to success. That's what makes Tangled and Frozen so great; the storyline and everything else. And who are you to say Disney shouldn't be making movies like Tangled? Every Disney Princess movie is very different than the original story, and are still loved by many.

Because Disney is a hand-drawn studio, and they seem to be forgetting that. Anyway, my feelings for Disney now are very two-sided. I still love the 2D Disney of before, which I consider to be "The REAL Disney" and the one that I've loved all my life, but I abosultely hate this stupid New Age, CGI only Disney era of today and would love nothing more than to see this Disney die and go back to what it's supposed to be.

But you do ask a good question. Even I wonder why I keep wasting my time arguing about today's Disney with what I always think are such blind "Disney fans". It's probably because I have to keep getting reminded of their stupid movies all the time.

i could write another five essays arguing with u, but i just wrote about three explaining other things. besides, it seems InspiredAndNatural is keeping u busy enough with this ongoing debate. a few words: DUDE, WELCOME TO THE 21ST CENTURY WHERE THERE IS A NEW GENERATION OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO R LOOKING FOR THINGS THEY CAN RELATE TO. for the older generation, i take it, that u like, that's y they make more adult movies. the Disney Animation of today is EXACTLY in style with what my generation ADORES about Disney. so far, 14 of my friends hav gone to c Frozen and they LOVED IT!! almost as much as i did (and i <3 it so much that i saw it TWICE!). what u say Disney is "supposed to be", well this is it. this is a show of Disney's flexability and adapting to the change of time and interest. this is Disney evolving to a new environment called THE MODERN AGE. if u don't like it, then i guess u could just keep watching the old stuff that u like. maybe u'll grow into liking this modern style as well!

Even CGI has some hand-drawn in it. In fact, Frozen has some hand-drawn stuff in it. And there's nothing wrong with the animation. 0therwise there wouldn't be believable snow, which is what they wanted. And then there was the hair and hairstyles of that culture/era, clothes, etc

Nick102 wrote:Oh please. They waste all their efforts and time trying to push 2D qualities into what is clearly CGI instead of actually doing REAL 2D. That's the only reason they had 2D animators doing these incredibly pointless hand-drawn animation tests for Wreck-It Ralph when it wasn't even supposed to be a 2D movie. But more than that, they just keep using CGI to push for all this "CGI realism" stuff that I'm almost sick of after having to see it all the time from the dozens of other computer animated movies from other studios. The fact is, CGI movies do not impress me anymore. I don't care how realistic the water/ice looks, or how detailed the hair or clothes look. These kind of animated movies are like a fad that's gone on for way too long.

And as for 2D qualities, Paperman and Get a Horse are the only things I've seen out of the current Disney that manage to do that properly, because they actually look like 2D animation to the point where you feel like you haven't lost anything at all.

i'm just not even gonna say anything, cause otherwise i'll get so angry that i will say a lot of things 2 u that i will dearly regret...

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

if that's ur way of thinking, then most the public will NOT VOTE TO GET RID OF TANGLED!

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Why should Disney give up a realistic animation as CGI? And that's so arrogant to think they shouldn't be doing something. That was very judgmental. How is realism bad? The way the hair flows is so human and not cartoonish, and it's the same with the clothes and even the breathing. In real-life, in winter, a small cloud forms when you breath into the cold air. In Frozen, you can see that. And when the characters walked, you can see footprints in the snow. How is that bad?

that's what i wanna know. >:( if i were Elsa right now, u'd probably b frozen urself, Nick.

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Why should Disney give up a realistic animation as CGI? And that's so arrogant to think they shouldn't be doing something. That was very judgmental. The animation is, in a way, like Shrek the Third, because of everything being realistic. The way the hair flows is so human and not cartoonish, and it's the same with the clothes and even the breathing. In real-life, in winter, a small cloud forms when you breath into the cold air. In Frozen, you can see that. And when the characters walked, you can see footprints in the snow. How is that bad?

Remeber when cartoons and animation were an art that didn't have to look real? Because I sure do.

could we PLZ stop arguing before i explode and start swearing and stuff?!?!?!?

i canNOT believe how a disscustion about Rapunzel's cameo turned into one about Disney's animation choices. if something looks REALISTIC it's more REALATABLE to which is what the modern, REAL Disney fans are looking for. it keeps the REAL money rolling in at a REALISTIC rate. u see how all of those REAL statements share the root REAL Nick?

Poninefreak wrote:Just because a movie is CGI doesn't automaticly make it bad, you know.

It's bad for Disney to even be doing them. It's continually making them throw out their own hand-drawn division for no good reason at all. They may have claimed at one point that they could do both kinds of movies, with respect for both mediums and with the kind of equal treatment that they deserve, butafter changing Frozen from a 2D movie to a CGI one, I was completely convinced that they can't. Movies like Princess and the Frog and Tangled can never truly co-exist peacefully and both be Disney movies as far as I'm concerned. One of them has to go.

Why should Disney give up a realistic animation as CGI? And that's so arrogant to think they shouldn't be doing something. That was very judgmental. The animation is, in a way, like Shrek the Third, because of everything being realistic. The way the hair flows is so human and not cartoonish, and it's the same with the clothes and even the breathing. In real-life, in winter, a small cloud forms when you breath into the cold air. In Frozen, you can see that. And when the characters walked, you can see footprints in the snow. How is that bad?

Remeber when cartoons and animation were an art that didn't have to look real? Because I sure do.

I kinda agree with your opinion, but at the same time it does sound a little overly harsh. I love BOTH The Princess and the Frog (mainly for the songs, and the character Tiana and the fact she is the first African-American Disney Princess, and a few other characters) and Tangled. As for Frozen, I haven't seen it yet, don't really want too until it comes on TV for free years from now or a friend happens to have the DVD of it, and wasn't really looking forward to it from the moment I heard the plot. To me, it sounded too much like Tangled which was a great film, but it made it seem like Disney was loosing their creativity and originality. And because I heard it was in CGI. It reminded me way too much of how the current generation at the Disney Studios are completely forgetting their 2D roots. I don't know much about Frozen, but I'm sure it would've worked fine as a 2D film. It's sad to see an art form, an art form that Disney reinvented and changed A LOT in the earlier days, like with the reinvention of the multiplane camera (which I bet half of the people who post here have never heard of, despite being a big part of Disney history), an art form that people worked extremely hard on by hand before there was computers to help them out, be forgotten by the same company! It's so sad! I mean just look at the dimension and detail in these scenes that were all made before computers and CGI: http://youtu.be/R5yJCncdiAc

And then again... the legacy has still been in the newer films taken from the older ones, like Tangled and Wreck It Ralph. Every animated Disney film has some part of it's legacy from the time when Walt was alive and a little after in them, in my mind. Sure, the newer films are not in 2D, but they still have the same cartoonish and whimsical elements, the same humor, the same heart, the same amazing and colorful animation, despite it being in a different medium. It's not wrong for Disney to make a few CGI films, if they stick to those things. They don't have to make only 2D films. If you know anything about Walt Disney, you would've known he said things like:

"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

"I do not like to repeat successes, I like to go on to other things."

"We have created characters and animated them in the dimension of depth, revealing through them to our perturbed world that the things we have in common far outnumber and outweigh those that divide us."

"I am not influenced by the techniques or fashions of any other motion picture company."

I'm sure he would've be interested in CGI. I mean... his company was known for making animated movies when he decided to make his first live action film, another medium of story telling. And he was one of the first to combine animation and live action, and not just with Mary Poppins but waaay back in the 20's in the Alice Comedies. But anyway, if Disney does do all CGI... then that would be stupid, like you said, and a tragedy.

And I just wanted to add... there's realism 2D films too. Well, it's like this: 2D films can have realistic elements, and CGI films can have cartoonish elements (besides... that's the reason why no humans in Pixar films (except Tin Toy... which was how they learned) look exactly like photorealisitic humans like in Mars Needs Moms or The Polar Express... it would be too creepy. At the same time, you can relate to the characters and find realism in them, like in The Incredibles). There's no either or. This whole debate you caused, Nick102, isn't really making your side of the argument seem better, even if I agree with part of what you said. Accept that some people do have different opinions.

i agree. Jay, thank u for helping me find my balance point between CGI style and 2D style. i almost blew it for myself; i was on the verge of starting a new thread entirely for debating the filming style of Disney. so thank u Jay for helping me find the middle ground and understanding other perspectives. -Misty

also, while we're on the topic of Frozen, Frozen won a Golden Globe Award for "Best Animated Feature Film" at 9:53-9:54 pm (ya, i know, i kept track of the time) amoung The Croods and Despicable Me 2. also, the song "Let it Go" was nominated for "Best Original Music", amoung Catching Fires's "Atlas" and Mandela's "Ordinary Love" (the latter of which took the prize). while we're on the subject of Jennifer Lawrence (i'm a HUGE fan!!!), she won the FIRST Golden Globe Award of the night for her role in American Hustle. a good while latter, the movie she was in, American Hustle, won an award for "Best Comedy" (COMEDY?? SERIOUSLY?!?).

I love all the Disney movies except the live action ones (that doesn't include Enchanted). I don't know why, I just never enjoyed them. Back on topic, I believe my brother read on a website a theory behind Rapunzel and Flynn's attendance to Elsa's coronation. Rapunzel is Anna and Elsa's cousin, and I'm going to guess through their mothers because they looks the most alike. The reason Anna and Elsa's parents were travelling by ship was they had heard their lost niece had returned and were going to represent their side of the family (whether it was because she was home or for her wedding), but the ship was caught in the storm and Anna and Elsa's parents lost their lives. Rapunzel and Flynn show up and Rapunzel looks like she's looking at Anna as if to say hello in the few seconds you see her, because they are representing their side of the family at Elsa's coronation. The theory also said something about the storm being caused by Ursula and the ship they're standing on at the end (SPOLIER: when Anna punches Hans) is Eric's wrecked ship which he is sailing when Ariel first saves him and they fall in love. I'm not so sure about the last bit, but the first bit certainly seems plausable. To be honest, I thought it was just a ship that had been sunken because the fjord froze over. I hope it's all true. Connecting Disney movies and making up a Disney family is so cute! I also want to know if Nancy from Enchanted (Idina Menzel plays her too) is related to Cinderella, as her surname is Tremaine also. Before anyone complains, yes, it is, because Lady Tremaine only inherited that name from Cinderella's father before he died. I read on IMDB (I think) that in Eric's dining hall there is a painting of a couple that look like Aurora and Phillip, and that it is a hint that they are ancestors of Eric's. I'm not very good at guessing time periods, so I don't know if they could be his parents or grandparents or something. You never see Eric's parents, so you never know. If someone does know please correct me!

Me too, I hope it's true! It would be kinda cool if all the Disney characters were related in some way. What I think would be cool (and totally goes against what I said earlier) is a live action movie with all the Disney characters together in our world. There are so many actors and actresses that look like them! I know I have way too much time on my hands since I've thought of this, and came up with teaser trailers. Most would feature the princesses about to do something iconic from their movie, then their cellphone would ring, and they'd say something like "Yeah, I'll be there!" and ditch whoever they were with, leaving that person totally dumbfounded. The only problem would be the age of the princcesses, so many of them are meant to be young. I mean, the age gap between Elsa and Snow White is 7 years! I'd just make them all about 18, except Elsa, she'd be 21 (like me). I'd probably set it in a sorority or something where Elsa, being a queen, is president of their chapter, who would be so happy that her sister (and possible cousin) is pledging. I think this idea is because I'm from Scotland and we have nothing like this here. I know that some sororities can be elitist and exclusive to one certain people, but so is Glasgow University. This sorority would obviously be the opposite of this, seeing as so many of the characters are different. I know, I'm crazy and once again have too much time on my hands! <3

I know, it's weird when you see the picture of all the Disney princesses standing together, and some of it looks irregular because of the difference in animation, which I believe is why they "glamified" Merida's cartoon, to make her look less CGI and to "fit in" with the others. I think the new look is awful and they should just have kept them all the way they were. Cinderella's hair sucks, Rapunzel looks like she has something wrong with her, and Pocahontas's face is ridiculously wide. It reminds me of Joe from Family Guy!

On the contrary, I like the new designs for the artistic opportunities it presents me with because I am also a fan artist, but of course I do love their other designs but... For the sake of the line up you know hahaha

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the new line up, I just preferred it when the picture had them as they were in their films. What I would love to see is some Art Deco or Art Nouveau princess designs. Rapunzel would be easy to do in Art Nouveau because of her long hair and the swirling organic shapes of the art (I say easy, but really I can't draw), and I just love Art Deco because of Midnight in Paris.

Wait, Hercules was a prince, since his dad was a king. And Merida married him, so she's technically a princess. But why didn't Disney add her to the line-up? She and kids should be in it, since they were royalty. I want every girl to be in it. That would be great.

I haven't seen Rapunzel's mom and Elsa and Anna's mom to see the resemblance. If maybe someone could post a picture of them together, I could maybe see it. But I see the resemblance between Anna and Rapunzel, though.

I think you might be right. Either way, I'm pretty sure all Disney movies are connected in some way or another. It would be cool if they did a Rapunzel/Frozen crossover though. Maybe something like Rapunzel and Flynn showing up for Anna and Kristoff's wedding?

Ana and Elsa are Rapunzel's cousin. It was on the way to Rapunzel's wedding that Ana and Elsa's parents shipwrecked. It was their shipwreck that Ariel sees in the begging of Little Mermaid. But they didn't die, they washed up on an island and gave birth to a son named Tarzan. They were later killed by a wildcat.

KailJonseu wrote:Ana and Elsa are Rapunzel's cousin. It was on the way to Rapunzel's wedding that Ana and Elsa's parents shipwrecked. It was their shipwreck that Ariel sees in the begging of Little Mermaid. But they didn't die, they washed up on an island and gave birth to a son named Tarzan. They were later killed by a wildcat.

I think Rapunzel and Elsa/Anna could well be related. But even then, Anna walks straight passed them in Frozen as if they are just oridnary people that are invited to the coronation. But the whole Tarzan connection is just really, really desperate.

Oh gawd, I've been away from this for so long and it's still going on. That's it: I'm making up my own theories and they will include all of the above comments ideas plus more. Everyone is related in some way in Disney, how I'll make that up I'll never know. Anyway, off to write fan fiction that relates them all.

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I think Rapunzel and Elsa/Anna could well be related. But even then, Anna walks straight passed them in Frozen as if they are just oridnary people that are invited to the coronation. But the whole Tarzan connection is just really, really desperate.

lol same. idk bout the other movies, but i do know that Frozen literally takes place rite after Tangled. and the Sugar Rush candies are a cameo, as mentioned in one of the blogs i read.

As for the significance of Rapunzels' appearance in Frozen, I am on the fence about it. There have been so many easter eggs in Disneys films over the years and this could well be another one. But on the other hand, so much has been made about it compared to previous ones that I think to myself it can't be just another cameo.

I know, but I'm up for the challenge. I might not fit absolutely everyone in (for example, the smaller early-to-mid 2000's films mainly about animals, sequels, prequels and live action movies except Enchanted), but I'll try! So far so good with my idea, just getting the lot on paper with a large plot and dialogue is going to be hard, especially with the dynamics of each character. My idea is a Disney University, attended by all Disney characters. There is a sorority, for the Disney heriones and a frat house for the heroes, plus a Society of Evil (villain's club) that are determined to cause havoc for the Greek system. Some animal characters may be in human form (Simba, Nala, Stitch, Lady, Tramp, Duchess, Kittens, Thomas O'Malley, etc), which complicates some aspects a little, but also relieves a little complications from an already convoluted plot. Older siblings of the Freshmen would already be members of their houses (Sitka, Denahi, Elsa, Ariel's sisters, etc), and I would make it that the fan theory is correct; Elsa and Anna are the cousins of Rapunzel, but if we're following the same story, doesn't know it until she figures out her past. Each story would follow similarly to their Disney original, with a few tweaks. The main problem would be it wouldn't be a short story, it would be a novella at least, even a full novel if taken further. I'm not awful at creative writing, it is in fact my favourite and the form I received best grades in at school, but I don't think my creativity will stretch that far without flagging a little (more likely a lot). That's my plan, but if anyone who sees this has any suggestions, please let me know: all criticism is welcomed! (Nothing nasty though, just if something is too farfetched or a bad idea, just say that. Swearing at me will do nothing, as will just basic insults that most of the time are such poor English you understand why they hate your idea).

Holy Mary, that is a lot of writing. If this became a book it would be as thick as me (very in that case). It sounds like a very interesing read, but the problem I can see is, again, is complexity. But it sounds very good, I approve!

I think it would have to be a series if anything, and like you said, the complexity would mean spreading out the story over a long period of time. I would try to include every character, but it would take a lot of thought on my part. Plus there are movies I don't know/like that wouldn't be included that might disappoint some (live action/hybrids). Some love the hybrid musicals more than the animations, but I find live action singing (bar Enchanted) naff. I could include the characters, but I wouldn't be writing much about them. Mary Poppins could be a house mother from a boarding school some of the girls went to. Plus I like to discount some sequels because I don't like how the story went (Pocahontas 2 - she belongs with John Smith [even though I know in reality she did marry John Rolfe!]).

Just a wee thing I noticed while watching Frozen again the other day. When we see Rapunzel, she looks at Anna as if to say "hello". Then the scene changes to Elsa singing the line "don't let them in". The scene changes back and Anna who is now facing the gates outside her castle, as if she has turned around and said "hi" to someone in a hurry, then ducks under the huge cake. I think she did say a quick hello to her cousin or even just waved at her or shook her hand or gave her a quick hug, so it seems even more likely that they at least knew each other, and could be related.

LadyZoolander wrote:Just a wee thing I noticed while watching Frozen again the other day. When we see Rapunzel, she looks at Anna as if to say "hello". Then the scene changes to Elsa singing the line "don't let them in". The scene changes back and Anna who is now facing the gates outside her castle, as if she has turned around and said "hi" to someone in a hurry, then ducks under the huge cake. I think she did say a quick hello to her cousin or even just waved at her or shook her hand or gave her a quick hug, so it seems even more likely that they at least knew each other, and could be related.

I don't know if it's flattery or sarcasm, but thanks anyway. It's this forum's fault I started being like this, I look for clues to everything in Disney movies now. The Pixar ones are quite obvious, but the normal ones are not. I think I might change my name now that you've said it to "The Disney Detective". I bet I get sued by Disney because of "Basil: The Great Mouse Detective". Copyright is such an ass.

LadyZoolander wrote:Just a wee thing I noticed while watching Frozen again the other day. When we see Rapunzel, she looks at Anna as if to say "hello". Then the scene changes to Elsa singing the line "don't let them in". The scene changes back and Anna who is now facing the gates outside her castle, as if she has turned around and said "hi" to someone in a hurry, then ducks under the huge cake. I think she did say a quick hello to her cousin or even just waved at her or shook her hand or gave her a quick hug, so it seems even more likely that they at least knew each other, and could be related.

I didn't even notice that. I did see that Rapunzel was looking at her for a split second. Anna of course didn't notice since she was too busy singing, but maybe she did quickly say hello. Maybe I should watch the movie again and see if I can spot any more Easter eggs.

I know, I've watched so many times and not noticed until yesterday. I know there is a hidden mickey mouse figure in Oaken's Sauna on one of the shelves, but I can't find it! My brother suggested the Duke of Westleton is the duke from Cinderella, but he is tall, dark haired and benevolent, how could he turn so quickly into a small, balding grey-haired man with sinister undercurrents?

You know when Anna was asking Oaken if Elsa had passed by, you see there's a lower shelf. On about the left side, between the bottles or jars or whatever, you see there's a tiny one there. You may not see it at first, but look hard.

I will be doing that the next time I'm watching. It's like the Rapunzel bit: blink and you'll miss it! I wish there were more hidden easter eggs. So far I know of Rapunzel, Mickey and the painting of the swing.

I didn't quite believe it at first, I thought it was just colourful chocolate and they looked a bit like props from Sugar Rush, but when I went online and saw others had seen it, I knew it was an easter egg. I keep forgetting which blog I'm on because I'm between this one and the one about Hans being with Elsa being a bad idea, and Karenerskine has commented on it too so I keep forgetting what I'm talking about! I know I keep writing little fan fiction ideas for plots on each, but it's hard to remember which knows about which.

I know, we're obviously just a pair of Frozen fans! Thank god, I thought I was the only one going crazy. I just received my Elsa dress today, it fits perfectly! Now I need the shoes to arrive and I'm done!

LadyZoolander wrote:I know, we're obviously just a pair of Frozen fans! Thank god, I thought I was the only one going crazy. I just received my Elsa dress today, it fits perfectly! Now I need the shoes to arrive and I'm done!

Ruchill isn't much better. Sometimes I end up wanting to kill everyone in Tescos, all you get is junkies and trashy mothers shouting white trash names at their screaming brats. That's so cool that we're on the same forum and live near each other!

Well, Scotland is ok, but the international shipping charges from the US are extortionate! That being said, my brother got a load of comic books at a good price. I do agree this is one badass disney family on here!

Cash4gold24 wrote:so, i've just been wondering, other then let it go, what is everyones favoriote song frome frozen? i like the first time in forever reprise

Do You Wanna Build A Snowman. I just love the journey that happens in that song, the only journey greater in the film is Elsa's in Let It Go. It's also the only song except Let It Go that's rememberable.

Cash4gold24 wrote:so, i've just been wondering, other then let it go, what is everyones favoriote song frome frozen? i like the first time in forever reprise

Do You Wanna Build A Snowman. I just love the journey that happens in that song, the only journey greater in the film is Elsa's in Let It Go. It's also the only song except Let It Go that's rememberable.

I have no idea what I like best. Let It Go just makes me think of what happened when I got kicked out of uni. I actually want to take my nursing badge and throw it away like Elsa does with her crown. I would make a music video if I could sing like her. :(

LadyZoolander wrote:I have no idea what I like best. Let It Go just makes me think of what happened when I got kicked out of uni. I actually want to take my nursing badge and throw it away like Elsa does with her crown. I would make a music video if I could sing like her. :(

LadyZoolander wrote:I have no idea what I like best. Let It Go just makes me think of what happened when I got kicked out of uni. I actually want to take my nursing badge and throw it away like Elsa does with her crown. I would make a music video if I could sing like her. :(

why'd you get kicked out? sorry short memory, or you haven't told us, or something.

A bunch of stupid things happened. I failed an essay, so they got mad, so then they called me to this meeting where I told them why, which was kind of their fault for sending me to a placement too far away for me to get to. I don't even have a car! My mentor kept sending me to places I didn't know and I kept having to wait hours to get home. Plus a bunch of family stuff was going on because my grandmothers are both pretty ill, and they claimed I didn't tell them that I needed help when I did, I phoned several times to complain about the placement and told a lecturer at one meeting that my family life was difficult, and they held all that against me. Word to the wise: The University of Glasgow is a horrible place. People who go there are up their own asses, and I'm not saying that because I'm bitter, I'm saying this from experience. I actually had a person lecture me for being vegetarian! She talked to me as if I were a child molester or something, like it was the worst thing in the world. She also decided to bring each of her 3 (expensive) cars to class just to make sure everyone knew she had 3 cars, one of which she bought because one of them was getting fixed. Plus there was a guy who would argue with you about anything, also had ridiculous amounts of expensive cars, who was really insensitive towards people and talked about them behind their backs. He claimed his family owned an estate in Australia, but whether that's true or not, I'll never know. I was the only one in my class that didn't have my own car, still lived at home and couldn't afford to buy an iPad (and we're talking Gen 1 here!). None of them seemed like nursing material, but they will make it because they pass all the exams. It scares me that you have to pass an exam to be a nurse, but no one measures it based on what being a nurse actually takes! Anyway, once it was over I felt like Elsa singing Let It Go. I felt so much happier and free, and listening to that song only reminds me that it's not what I left behind that matters; it's where I'm going now.

Yep. Disney music has always resonated with me in a special way, and Let It Go was just really special because it was so familiar. Now all there is to do is to get my goddamn Elsa shoes and just lipsync the song in a badly made video. I wish I had my own mountain...

My parents would never allow me to do that. I remember Halloween. Every year I'd beg my mom to let me buy a costume for once, yet she always made me wear a costume made from parts of clothes. It really sucked. But now I live in a country where they've never heard of it, I miss it.

Thankfully my outfit was a gift. If it hadn't been, I could never afford it. Plus I was going to make my own Elsa outfit when I found a dress similar to it but without the sleeves or glitter in a charity shop, but then my mum noticed that the dress had come down in price on ebay (it was a price that would cause heart-attacks originally), so it became a birthday present.

Well, it was my 21st, so she wanted it to be special. I think if it had just been a regular birthday she would have told me it was a no-go. Tbh if it wasn't for my gran I would have a lot less. She paid for half of my other gifts, so I can see how my mum could afford the dress and shoes. I think I'll have to use it as my wedding dress though, I doubt either of us could afford another!

Scotland is ok. The weather changes super quick though. One minute you think it's the middle of summer, the next it could snow. I just couldn't leave, it's home to me and I think I'd end up too homesick to live anywhere else. I think the only place I would consider living is Paris. I know it's a cliche, but I loved it. And I'm actually a little angry that Merida is Scottish. I wanted to be the first Scottish princess! >:z

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I liked Brave a lot, but I agree that Frozen is better, I would even say Tangled is better.

@Cash4gold24, what didn't you like about Brave?

i didnt hate it, it just didnt live up to the expectations I have for disney. the animation was pretty good, but i didn't really like the story. tangled was pretty good, but i barely remember it, and frozen, obviously, was AMAZING

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I liked Brave a lot, but I agree that Frozen is better, I would even say Tangled is better.

@Cash4gold24, what didn't you like about Brave?

i didnt hate it, it just didnt live up to the expectations I have for disney. the animation was pretty good, but i didn't really like the story. tangled was pretty good, but i barely remember it, and frozen, obviously, was AMAZING

Frozen is totally amazing. I go into movies with low expectations so that I'm pleasantly surprised. Brave and Frozen both did that for me.

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I liked Brave a lot, but I agree that Frozen is better, I would even say Tangled is better.

@Cash4gold24, what didn't you like about Brave?

i didnt hate it, it just didnt live up to the expectations I have for disney. the animation was pretty good, but i didn't really like the story. tangled was pretty good, but i barely remember it, and frozen, obviously, was AMAZING

Frozen is totally amazing. I go into movies with low expectations so that I'm pleasantly surprised. Brave and Frozen both did that for me.

i didn't expect frozen to be great, and after it started the same way almost as the little mermaid, and then the trolls (which i didn't like at first, but they're growing on me" i thought it was going to be a flop, but from the time they sang do you want to build a snowman on, i was CAPTIVATED

I'm the same, I never expected Frozen to be good, hence why I never watched it in the cinemas. I really really regret not seeing it in cinemas though, it would have been sensational. Also, about Brave not living up to the usual Disney standards, remember it is Pixar that made it and it was their first Princess/fairytale type film.

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I'm the same, I never expected Frozen to be good, hence why I never watched it in the cinemas. I really really regret not seeing it in cinemas though, it would have been sensational. Also, about Brave not living up to the usual Disney standards, remember it is Pixar that made it and it was their first Princess/fairytale type film.

Talking about Pixar, one Pixar film I have never been a big fan of is Finding Nemo. I think I am the only person on this earth that doesn't love it. I will watch it tomorrow, perhaps it will grow on me.

I wouldn't say I love Finding Nemo, but I like it. The only thing is once you've seen it twice it gets boring. The jokes aren't funny anymore when you've heard them too many times, but I guess that applies to all films.

I was just looking up random stuff about Tangled just out of interest and I read that it cost around 260 million dollars to make. I am looking around to find why it was so insanely expensive, but I can't find a logical explanation for it.

To put it into perspective, Frozen cost around 150 million dollars to make; yet they both look pretty much identical in animation style and quality.

UNTAMEDKILLA94 wrote:I was just looking up random stuff about Tangled just out of interest and I read that it cost around 260 million dollars to make. I am looking around to find why it was so insanely expensive, but I can't find a logical explanation for it.

To put it into perspective, Frozen cost around 150 million dollars to make; yet they both look pretty much identical in animation style and quality.

I am a bit like that, I think that's maybe why I never thought anything of Frozen when it first came out, because it is quite "feminine". But you have to put that aside and watch it for what it is; or else there is really no point in watching it at all. Yeah it is girly, but that doesn't mean it's bad. It's absolutely brilliant is what it is!

I'm kind of the same, I love Disney, but over the past few years I've been more into boyish movies like Anchorman and Superbad and stupid stuff like that, but I think Frozen has turned me back around to girlie stuff. I just recently discovered my BT Vision box now gets Pop, which has shows like My Little Pony and Care Bears on all the time, so I've started watching them too. I think I've hit some sort of mid-life crisis at 21! I hope I don't die at 42...

When I was really little, it was Cinderella, then I discovered The Little Mermaid and became obsessed with Ariel, then about 15 years later Tangled came out and I loved Rapunzel because my hair is super long (down to past my bum, not quite as long as hers), but now Frozen came about and I really love Elsa! At the moment it's still Elsa, but you never know, it could change at any moment. I've realised that I go through "phases", one minute I like one thing and I'm obsessed with it, the next it's something else.

LadyZoolander wrote:When I was really little, it was Cinderella, then I discovered The Little Mermaid and became obsessed with Ariel, then about 15 years later Tangled came out and I loved Rapunzel because my hair is super long (down to past my bum, not quite as long as hers), but now Frozen came about and I really love Elsa! At the moment it's still Elsa, but you never know, it could change at any moment. I've realised that I go through "phases", one minute I like one thing and I'm obsessed with it, the next it's something else.

LadyZoolander wrote:When I was really little, it was Cinderella, then I discovered The Little Mermaid and became obsessed with Ariel, then about 15 years later Tangled came out and I loved Rapunzel because my hair is super long (down to past my bum, not quite as long as hers), but now Frozen came about and I really love Elsa! At the moment it's still Elsa, but you never know, it could change at any moment. I've realised that I go through "phases", one minute I like one thing and I'm obsessed with it, the next it's something else.

I think that... no, I KNOW that Anna and Elsa are my favorite Disney Princesses. What I love about Anna is that she's never angry unless something really hurts her. What I love about Elsa is her ice magic and how she uses it.